By Bob Katzen
L
Senate 5-34, rejected an amendment to the current law, known as the MBTA Communities Act, which according to the state’s website, requires that an MBTA community “must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria including minimum gross density of 15 units per acre; and a location not more than 1/2 mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. No age restrictions can be applied and the district must be suitable for families with children.”
The amendment would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop and promulgate regulations allowing a city or town affected by the zoning provisions of the MBTA Communities Act to appeal for relief from those provisions. The amendment would also require any appeal to be based on at least one of the following criteria: the community’s inability to meet the drinking water supply or wastewater requirements necessary to support the housing units authorized by the law’s zoning provisions; the inability of municipal transportation infrastructure to safely accommodate the increased population attributable to this housing development; and any adverse environmental impacts attributable to the development of housing units under this act.
“Allowing for these exceptions provides an avenue for a town to rightfully appeal the MBTA Community decision in cases where more harm than good is present,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).
Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), the sponsor of the amendment, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to comment on his amendment.
“I voted against [this amendment] because it was based on what I believe is the inaccurate premise that a municipality must permit construction of housing in MBTA community zones even if there is an inadequate drinking water supply, wastewater capabilities, transportation infrastructure and environmental protections,” said Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy).
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment allowing an appeal. A “No” vote is against the amendment.)
Sen. Patricia Jehlen No